August 6, 2011

The continuing saga of Lawrence Connell, who "was vindicated on a wide range of charges," but found to have violated a policy against "retaliation" for the way he responded to the accusations that had been made against him — for defending himself. The remedy sought by Widener Law School Dean Linda Ammons?

Professor Connell will undergo a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist of his choice selected from a list of four individuals provided to him by the University. The purpose of this evaluation will be to determine his fitness for his teaching position, particularly in view of his retaliatory response to the student complaints lodged against him.... Professor Connell will comply with all conditions and recommendations issued by the psychiatrist/psychologist, including, without limitation, appropriate counseling and anger management, prior to the lifting of the suspension and his return to teaching duties. Not earlier than sixty (60) days prior to the end of the term of Professor Connell’s one year suspension, his psychiatrist/psychologist must send to the Dean and Vice Dean an evaluation assessing Professor Connell’s fitness to return to duties, completion of courses or training, if applicable, and a follow-up treatment plan. if any.

Plus he's supposed to apologize.

ADDED: David Bernstein withdraws from "a Widener-sponsored project," saying "I can’t in good conscience have my reputation associated in any way with Widener Law School."

Why would anyone go to such a school when law school itself is such a dubious proposition these days? Why would the dean act this way, in light of the fact that the dean is expected to attract donations and present a positive image for the school?

I am Sane.Therefore anybody who disagrees with me is Crazy.Crazy people need to be locked up so they don't make other people Crazy or hurt other people.This professor disagrees with me, so he must be Crazy, and needs to be locked up.

Dean Linda Ammons is an idiot and a creep, but she only had the power to recommend that a year suspension without pay, Soviet psychiatry and a forced apology be imposed on Lawrence Connell.

The individual who accepted and imposed that recommendation is educrat twat Widener University President James T. Harris III D.Ed. (D.Ed. means that he's the holder of a prestigious Doctor of Education, i.e., that he's a utterly worthless mediocrity.)

If the rest of America's lovely and talented legal profession condones this crap, you're all as bad as they are.

Is the ABA taking a position on Widener's and Dean Ammons' contemptible action? Have the deans of any other law schools protested, or urged Widener to censure or terminate Dean Ammons? Have America's law professors signed a letter of protest?

David Bernstein has integrity. Do any of the rest of you?

Meanwhile, I hope prospective employers Google the names "Jennifer R. Perez" and "Nadege Tandoh" before they make any hiring decisions. Jennifer R. Perez and Nadege Tandoh were the two thin-skinned, grievance-prone students who filed the absurd complaint against Professor Connell, and whose assertions of racism and discrimination were found to be entirely without merit. In my humble opinion, any company or law firm that hires either Jennifer Perez or Nadege Tandoh is essentially taping a "KICK ME" sign to its own metaphorical back.

BJM, people are concentrating on the hypocrisy of the "Prog Twit" but I think what is actually more important is her claim that if something is a "fact" that rules of civility do not apply. And then she assigns "fact" to her opinions about the economy and policy and the future.

Maybe it does tie in to the Ammons thing.

Both women seem to be confusing their own opinions and certainly their feelings, with "facts."

Our of curiosity I went looking to read more on this. He was cleared of all charges, and there were many, related to sexism/racism involving presenations and hypotheticals he used in his classes.

There were 3 retaliation charges brought against him. Two were dismissed because they were legal actions taken against those accusing him, and actually done by his attorney...very typical counter charges delivery of paperwork etc.

The charge he was convicted on, seriously, is that he posted on his web page that he was innocent and the charges that were brought against him were untrue and abhorrent. In other words he retaliated against the accusers by publicly calling them "liars" indirectly by saying he was innocent.

I observed back during the Robert's nomination to the Supreme Court that the idea of appointing a psychologist to the court was not dismaying to many progressives. Isn't this just a variation? Are we all to be judged by psychologists in the future?

This crap happens all the time in private business.... have an argument with a co-worker and end up in mandatory anger management class with Stuart Smalley. What happened to the days of having differences and settling it over a beer after work.

It's almost pointless to mention such subtleties in the midst of such a ham-fisted attack, but you have to admire the chutzpah of simultaneously saying someone requires psychological evaluation, thus implying they're not capable of controlling their actions, and requiring an apology, which is fundamentally an act of self control.

A question for our hostess (or other commenters who are lawyers): It's clear that Widener has damaged its reputation here, not just with the negative Internet publicity, but with people like Bernstein refusing to be associated with them.

Given this, do current law students there have an actionable tort against the school? I'd think there's quite a lot of school marketing materials that make claims of some sort.

That psych evaluation process would not pass muster in Mississippi, where I practice law. That's effin' crazy. The only kind of psych doctor that would agree to conduct that kind of evaluation is the kind of doctor that won't pass a Frye test, much less Daubert.